15 ms·

I think this is an interesting thing. If you scale the idea of 'country' down to the size of a tribe, then you can call it taxation, whithout any euphemism. The

I think this is an interesting thing. If you scale the idea of 'country' down to the size of a tribe, then you can call it taxation, whithout any euphemism. They control/own the land, they decide the 'laws' on it. If that is good or bad for development of a region is another question.

amitport 5y ago
It is not taxation. They "protected" against themselves not anyone else. And I emphasis, protection is not the only Bedouin occupation. But it is one and there is no need to sugar coat it.
- kaveh_h 5y ago
  It’s called taxation, in the Middle ages peasants we’re taxed by the King and the only thing offered was protection. Government services is a modern world thing.
  - amitport 5y ago
    And even in the middle ages there were criminals. People that rubbed villagers on the side of the road. People that brunt down their fields and asked for money. There is a difference between violently robing people and taxation. This discussion is somewhat sureal to me.
    - snmx999 5y ago
      In a modern society, if you don't pay your taxes you are likely to be imprisoned, possibly violently (depending on circumstances). Fundamentally there is no difference.
      - amitport 5y ago
        There is a prison, there is a state. Not just a violent group that wants your money for themselves. Fundamentally Hugh differences.
        snmx999 5y ago
        You fail to see the parallels. A state is a group of people, and taxation is money for that group. I guess you are thinking emotionally and with associations ("state" and "tax" is something "respectful" and "civilized" and "bedouins" and "robbers" are something "uncivilized").
        amitport 5y ago
        First of all I didn't say 'bedouins' are 'uncivilized'. Bedouins are not just about what we discuss here and they are not all violent, unlawful, or "robbers". Second, I see very well where people are making the very much false IMO parallels. You are comparing modern states to opportunistic self-serving shortsighted violent families. Yes, states used and use violence also, but, no, they did not evolve from the kind of behavior that we are talking about, if anything they evolved in opposition to this. "Parallels"? similarity? maybe in some broad sense, but the differences are Hugh. There is no structure here, there is no idea of a shared identity, there is no law. There is just the extended family (tribe) an the opportunity and willingness to do harm to others for profit. And no, historically this is not where we all came from, and no, this was not how most states where formed, and no, this is not what taxes are about.
        deathgripsss 5y ago
        >You are comparing modern states to opportunistic self-serving shortsighted violent families. That seems to me to be a very fair comparison
- wsc981 5y ago
  If I don’t pay my countries taxes, I risk being put into prison. Doesn’t sound that much different tbh.
  - amitport 5y ago
    You risk being murdered and your business put on fire? Stop romanticizing it. Yes, some states started from violent protection based tribes (not all of them). This was not taxation. There were/are states and actual laws in the places Bedouin extort people for money under threat of violence. They provided no service in return execpt the promise that they themselves would not harm you. Absolutely no, extorting "protection" money is not OK and it is not taxation.
    - erklik 5y ago
      > You risk being murdered and your business put on fire? I mean he literally didn't say that. He said that he risks being put in prison. In general, that's in effect the same. You lose your property, and largely fall into cycles of institutionalized crime. Although, I don't really agree with it since I don't see many modern countries putting people in long term prison for just taxation issues.
      - amitport 5y ago
        I know he didn't say that. I tried to say (perhaps unsuccessfully) That this is a different between taxes and "protection" by crime groups. Rubbers like the one we're discussing shot you where you stand there is no "system" or "state" or "prison".
        LightG 5y ago
        The difference is marginal in my view. The only difference now is that they wear suits and bleed you slowly instead of putting you out of your misery with one shot. Time for a coffee.
        5y ago
- owlmirror 5y ago
  When you pay them you have safe passage through their territory, not only from them but from other tribes who usually want to avoid robbing people in another tribes territory. With the taxation you not only pay them to not rob you but their presence also protects you from other robbers, who may not be willing to negotiate and just shoot you. I really don't see a principled difference to taxation by states, the only difference is the size and a more formalized institution surround the racket. You can decide for yourself on the morality of it, I will avoid to offer an opinion on it.
  - amitport 5y ago
    You don't pay them to have safe passage through their territory. It's not their territory, similarly to how guerrilla groups in Columbia/Nepal do not own the Jungle/Himalaya/etc, and you don't get a choice whether you want their protection. If you brought your own armed man with you, you will get fired upon. There where/are rubbers in Europe and in the USA, and we call them "rubbers"/"criminals". Why all of a sudden when we're discussing an "exotic" tribe we can't call it what it is? and again I'm emphasizing that not all Bedouin tribes practic(ed) violent rubbery, but some really did(do), and it was/is really nothing like taxation. If we want to discuss a general claim that rubbery is the same as taxation, that's fine (and I disagree), but there is no reason to drag a specific type of rubbers into focus.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "It's not their territory" Who decides that? They lived there since generations. They had weapons. They controlled who goes in their land. I think that mattered more in reality, than some arbitary lines drawn on some map far away, by people never been close to the land in the first place. And taxation in its oldest shape was indeed just protection money. You had to pay your lord/king for safety. Otherwise the noble knights came to your farm and took what they wanted and might have burned it down, if they felt like it. And if you passed through foreign land, you had to pay hundreds of local lords for safe passage. Same here. You pay the nomads for safety - they keep other tribes/rubbers away from their territory, providing you safety. So you can claim, they did provide a "service". But sure, you cannot really compare it to the taxation and services of the modern national states. And sure, for the caravans it would be better, if just no one was around they needed to pay for protection of someone else. It is parasitism. But this is how most states started. By preying on the weak for the benefit of a ruling class.
- natmaka 5y ago
  AFAIK nearly all work (besides "protection") was done by women.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    Not really. My father lived (with work) in Bedouin areas in Jordan 40 years ago, everyone had work to do, even children.
- hoseja 5y ago
  What happens if you stop paying taxes?
adwn 5y ago
> If you scale the idea of 'country' down to the size of a tribe, then you can call it taxation, whithout any euphemism. No. "Taxes" in the modern sense implies that the taxees [1] as a group receive something in return. Are the bedouins building and maintaining roads? I don't think so. "Pay us money or else we'll torture, rape, and/or kill you" alone doesn't qualify as taxes, but as extortion. [1] Is that a real word? I use it to refer to the people who have to pay taxes.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  They do receive something in return, passage on that land. With taxation you don't have a choice on what you get for it, it is not a restaurant.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >"Taxes" in the modern sense implies that the taxees [1] as a group receive something in return. You'd be surprised.
  - adwn 5y ago
    There are very few states today which don't return something in exchange for taxes, be it infrastructure, welfare, or other governmental services.
    - dash2 5y ago
      'Under anarchy, uncoordinated competitive theft by "roving bandits" destroys the incentive to invest and produce, leaving little for either the population or the bandits. Both can be better off if a bandit sets himself up as a dictator-a "stationary bandit" who monopolizes and rationalizes theft in the form of taxes. A secure autocrat has an encompassing interest in his domain that leads him to provide a peaceful order and other public goods...' Olson, 'Dictatorship, Democracy and Development', APSR 1993.
      - adwn 5y ago
        What's your point?
throwawaylinux 5y ago
I don't think you're correct there as others have pointed out, but are you trying to say that taxation is bad, or that this kind of rent-seeking behavior is good? I can't quite work out what you're getting at.
- hoseja 5y ago
  He's saying that you can't both say it's good if the government does it and bad if a tribe does it. The tribe has just as much right (that is, might), as a "legitimate government".
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > He's saying that you can't both say it's good if the government does it and bad if a tribe does it. Who says that though? Is it a straw man argument or is there some real point to it? Is it bad when the government and the tribe does it, or good when they do it? > The tribe has just as much right (that is, might), as a "legitimate government".
- coldtea 5y ago
  He says it's historically their land, their taxes. It's as good or as bad as when a state does it.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I know I'm asking what his point is. Taxes bad or rent-seeking good?

amitport 5y ago

It is not taxation. They "protected" against themselves not anyone else. And I emphasis, protection is not the only Bedouin occupation. But it is one and there is no need to sugar coat it.

kaveh_h 5y ago
It’s called taxation, in the Middle ages peasants we’re taxed by the King and the only thing offered was protection. Government services is a modern world thing.
- amitport 5y ago
  And even in the middle ages there were criminals. People that rubbed villagers on the side of the road. People that brunt down their fields and asked for money. There is a difference between violently robing people and taxation. This discussion is somewhat sureal to me.
  - snmx999 5y ago
    In a modern society, if you don't pay your taxes you are likely to be imprisoned, possibly violently (depending on circumstances). Fundamentally there is no difference.
    - amitport 5y ago
      There is a prison, there is a state. Not just a violent group that wants your money for themselves. Fundamentally Hugh differences.
      - snmx999 5y ago
        You fail to see the parallels. A state is a group of people, and taxation is money for that group. I guess you are thinking emotionally and with associations ("state" and "tax" is something "respectful" and "civilized" and "bedouins" and "robbers" are something "uncivilized").
        amitport 5y ago
        First of all I didn't say 'bedouins' are 'uncivilized'. Bedouins are not just about what we discuss here and they are not all violent, unlawful, or "robbers". Second, I see very well where people are making the very much false IMO parallels. You are comparing modern states to opportunistic self-serving shortsighted violent families. Yes, states used and use violence also, but, no, they did not evolve from the kind of behavior that we are talking about, if anything they evolved in opposition to this. "Parallels"? similarity? maybe in some broad sense, but the differences are Hugh. There is no structure here, there is no idea of a shared identity, there is no law. There is just the extended family (tribe) an the opportunity and willingness to do harm to others for profit. And no, historically this is not where we all came from, and no, this was not how most states where formed, and no, this is not what taxes are about.
        deathgripsss 5y ago
        >You are comparing modern states to opportunistic self-serving shortsighted violent families. That seems to me to be a very fair comparison
wsc981 5y ago
If I don’t pay my countries taxes, I risk being put into prison. Doesn’t sound that much different tbh.
- amitport 5y ago
  You risk being murdered and your business put on fire? Stop romanticizing it. Yes, some states started from violent protection based tribes (not all of them). This was not taxation. There were/are states and actual laws in the places Bedouin extort people for money under threat of violence. They provided no service in return execpt the promise that they themselves would not harm you. Absolutely no, extorting "protection" money is not OK and it is not taxation.
  - erklik 5y ago
    > You risk being murdered and your business put on fire? I mean he literally didn't say that. He said that he risks being put in prison. In general, that's in effect the same. You lose your property, and largely fall into cycles of institutionalized crime. Although, I don't really agree with it since I don't see many modern countries putting people in long term prison for just taxation issues.
    - amitport 5y ago
      I know he didn't say that. I tried to say (perhaps unsuccessfully) That this is a different between taxes and "protection" by crime groups. Rubbers like the one we're discussing shot you where you stand there is no "system" or "state" or "prison".
      - LightG 5y ago
        The difference is marginal in my view. The only difference now is that they wear suits and bleed you slowly instead of putting you out of your misery with one shot. Time for a coffee.
        5y ago
owlmirror 5y ago
When you pay them you have safe passage through their territory, not only from them but from other tribes who usually want to avoid robbing people in another tribes territory. With the taxation you not only pay them to not rob you but their presence also protects you from other robbers, who may not be willing to negotiate and just shoot you. I really don't see a principled difference to taxation by states, the only difference is the size and a more formalized institution surround the racket. You can decide for yourself on the morality of it, I will avoid to offer an opinion on it.
- amitport 5y ago
  You don't pay them to have safe passage through their territory. It's not their territory, similarly to how guerrilla groups in Columbia/Nepal do not own the Jungle/Himalaya/etc, and you don't get a choice whether you want their protection. If you brought your own armed man with you, you will get fired upon. There where/are rubbers in Europe and in the USA, and we call them "rubbers"/"criminals". Why all of a sudden when we're discussing an "exotic" tribe we can't call it what it is? and again I'm emphasizing that not all Bedouin tribes practic(ed) violent rubbery, but some really did(do), and it was/is really nothing like taxation. If we want to discuss a general claim that rubbery is the same as taxation, that's fine (and I disagree), but there is no reason to drag a specific type of rubbers into focus.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "It's not their territory" Who decides that? They lived there since generations. They had weapons. They controlled who goes in their land. I think that mattered more in reality, than some arbitary lines drawn on some map far away, by people never been close to the land in the first place. And taxation in its oldest shape was indeed just protection money. You had to pay your lord/king for safety. Otherwise the noble knights came to your farm and took what they wanted and might have burned it down, if they felt like it. And if you passed through foreign land, you had to pay hundreds of local lords for safe passage. Same here. You pay the nomads for safety - they keep other tribes/rubbers away from their territory, providing you safety. So you can claim, they did provide a "service". But sure, you cannot really compare it to the taxation and services of the modern national states. And sure, for the caravans it would be better, if just no one was around they needed to pay for protection of someone else. It is parasitism. But this is how most states started. By preying on the weak for the benefit of a ruling class.
natmaka 5y ago
AFAIK nearly all work (besides "protection") was done by women.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Not really. My father lived (with work) in Bedouin areas in Jordan 40 years ago, everyone had work to do, even children.
hoseja 5y ago
What happens if you stop paying taxes?

adwn 5y ago

> If you scale the idea of 'country' down to the size of a tribe, then you can call it taxation, whithout any euphemism. No. "Taxes" in the modern sense implies that the taxees [1] as a group receive something in return. Are the bedouins building and maintaining roads? I don't think so. "Pay us money or else we'll torture, rape, and/or kill you" alone doesn't qualify as taxes, but as extortion. [1] Is that a real word? I use it to refer to the people who have to pay taxes.

AdrianB1 5y ago
They do receive something in return, passage on that land. With taxation you don't have a choice on what you get for it, it is not a restaurant.
coldtea 5y ago
>"Taxes" in the modern sense implies that the taxees [1] as a group receive something in return. You'd be surprised.
- adwn 5y ago
  There are very few states today which don't return something in exchange for taxes, be it infrastructure, welfare, or other governmental services.
  - dash2 5y ago
    'Under anarchy, uncoordinated competitive theft by "roving bandits" destroys the incentive to invest and produce, leaving little for either the population or the bandits. Both can be better off if a bandit sets himself up as a dictator-a "stationary bandit" who monopolizes and rationalizes theft in the form of taxes. A secure autocrat has an encompassing interest in his domain that leads him to provide a peaceful order and other public goods...' Olson, 'Dictatorship, Democracy and Development', APSR 1993.
    - adwn 5y ago
      What's your point?

throwawaylinux 5y ago

I don't think you're correct there as others have pointed out, but are you trying to say that taxation is bad, or that this kind of rent-seeking behavior is good? I can't quite work out what you're getting at.

hoseja 5y ago
He's saying that you can't both say it's good if the government does it and bad if a tribe does it. The tribe has just as much right (that is, might), as a "legitimate government".
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > He's saying that you can't both say it's good if the government does it and bad if a tribe does it. Who says that though? Is it a straw man argument or is there some real point to it? Is it bad when the government and the tribe does it, or good when they do it? > The tribe has just as much right (that is, might), as a "legitimate government".
coldtea 5y ago
He says it's historically their land, their taxes. It's as good or as bad as when a state does it.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I know I'm asking what his point is. Taxes bad or rent-seeking good?